Q: From a prime minister’s perspective, how would you describe the importance of the relationship between Canada and the United States?

The Canada-U.S. relationship is the most important bilateral relationship that a Canadian Prime Minister has to deal with, by far. First, we have this tremendous trade relationship, we have security matters, and everything from culture and the military in between. Second, other nations around the world look to our relationship because we live cheek by jowl with the Americans. They are interested in what the relationship with the prime minister of Canada is with the president of the United States. I was known as a very good friend of president Reagan, and I was able to leverage that in Canada’s interests around the world.

So it’s very important that the prime minister of Canada maintain an excellent relationship with the president, but also with the leadership of both houses, on both sides of the aisle, and with the media and interest groups in Washington. The Canada-U.S. relationship is not a one trick pony. It’s a very complicated, sensitive matter that requires direction and leadership from the prime minister himself. It’s not something he can farm out to the minister of foreign affairs on a regular basis.

Q: By 1984, the year you were elected, the relationship between Canada and the United States had become frosty, to put it politely. How did you set about to change that?

The first time I met Ronald Reagan was in June 1984, when I was leader of the opposition. I met him for 45 minutes in the Oval Office, and he was very impressive. He had a very good command of the Canadian files that I raised, everything from acid rain to protectionism to steel imports from Ontario, and it looked very promising if I could win the election, which was clearly upcoming.

Q: One of the key events in cementing your relationship was the Shamrock Summit in Quebec City in 1985. Can you describe what that meeting meant for you, and for Canada?

The Shamrock Summit was a great success. It was a scene setter for what happened under president Reagan’s mandate and in the years following under Mr. Bush. The importance of that kind of a meeting, which we then had on a regular basis, is that it energizes the American government in a manner that nothing else can. It allows the president to convey to his subordinates that Canada is important to him personally, and that he wants to see things happen. Particularly if the present president indicates that he enjoys the company of the prime minister of Canada, looks forward to meeting him, and wants to help resolve the problems that are on Canada’s plate.

Q: Whose idea was it to sing?

The organizers invited the Reagans and us to join the cast on stage for a rendition of the closer, which was when Irish Eyes are Smiling. And only the goofy left-wing nationalists saw something wrong in it.

Q: The events at the summit did prompt criticism that you brought Canada too close to America’s influence.

Apart from the demonstrable silliness of such criticisms, I can put it this way. In my nine years as prime minister in dealing with the United States we resolved matters, in terms of big ticket items, free trade agreement, the North American free trade agreement, the Canada-U.S. Acid Rain Treaty and the Arctic sovereignty arrangement. Go back the previous nine years under Mr. Trudeau and then go ahead nine years under Mr. Chretien and look for comparable achievements in the Canada-U.S. file. You will look in vain.

Q: Let’s talk about the acid rain treaty. It has faded from public consciousness over the years, but was a huge issue at the time. Was Reagan on board from the beginning, or did he need convincing?

The acid rain issue was the seminal test of the Canada-U.S. relationship at a time when the environment was coming into its own. The Americans were reluctant to do something about it, because they didn’t believe all of the science we had available to us, showing that emissions from the U.S. Midwest which floated over Canada were killing off our lakes, forests and streams. So I set out to try and persuade them of that. President Reagan agreed to appoint envoys and began the process that led, four and a half years later, to president Bush signing the Canada-U.S. Acid Rain Treaty. There were unrelenting efforts on part of my government to persuade him and his administration to move this file along.

Q: Free trade was a far easier sell. You have said that you went to the man — Reagan — who could make it happen. How crucial was his leadership to getting the FTA?

Without Ronald Reagan, we wouldn’t have even been able to launch it. My recollection is that the vote in the Senate Finance Committee was failing until Reagan called the senator from Hawaii and pointed out the importance of Canadian tourists and whatnot, as result of which the vote was then tied and we could proceed. That’s how close it was. And here were all these characters in Ottawa saying America wanted to rush into a free trade agreement – the truth is they didn’t want it.

Q: Why did Reagan want it?

Reagan was a free trader. He believed free trade lifted all boats. He had seen the opposite of that during the Depression, and was very fearful of any kind of protectionism. In his speeches years before he called for a free trade zone from Anchorage to Tierra de Fuego. Ronald Reagan’s leadership and determination were absolutely key in securing the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. If you tried to get that today, what we achieved in 1987 and 1988, you would wait a long time.

Q: How much did his other economic policies — privatization, deregulation, supply side economics — influence Canada’s?

We were all children of our times. Mrs. Thatcher was in government in the United Kingdom, Mr. Reagan in the United States, and I was leading a conservative government in Canada. We had the benefit of being able to observe successes and failures elsewhere, before we went on to our own successes and failures here. As it turned out we privatized more swiftly than Mrs. Thatcher did, and cut spending much more considerably than Mr. Reagan did, but we were inspired by the general thrust of their policies, towards an end result that we thought was pretty desirable. It was kind of like a world movement towards free trade, a better tax situation, stronger militaries, and a common front against the Soviet Union.

Q: Of course you didn’t see eye to eye on everything. One area in particular was policy toward the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Reagan had some very firm views on that, which I could not accept, as did Mrs. Thatcher, and on this one we had to agree to disagree very strongly. I told him, Ron, I understand the American policy, but we have to go further on the sanctions, and I as the chairman of the Commonwealth am going to try to bring the Commonwealth into line and pursue a policy of sanctions that will result in the liberation of Nelson Mandela. Now, president Reagan thought that Mandela was a communist, and that the ANC was a communist organization. My answer to that was: look, if I’d been in jail for 27 years, and the only support that I was offered came from a communist I’d accept it very quickly. We’re talking about human rights here.

Q: In your eulogy at Mr. Reagan’s funeral, you refer to him with an expression used by the late French president Francois Mitterand: “Il a vraiment la notion de l’Etat.” What did you mean by that?

There is a difference between the job of president and the role of president. Anybody can do the job but there is an alchemy of eloquence, opportunity, skill, determination, resolve and a sense of history which come together to play the role. Reagan had this: he not only did the job, but he became the president. He understood the nature of the presidency and the leadership sought by the American people. He saw the United States as an exceptional nation and he appeared to be in unerring communion with its people and their aspirations.

Reagan was a remarkable leader for another reason: in all his years, he never took a bad picture and never gave a bad speech. He knew at all times how the American people wanted it to be. He never entered the Oval Office without a jacket and tie on. His reverence for the institution of the presidency was such that he wouldn’t even do that.

Q: How will history remember him?

He is on a short list of the greatest presidents of the history of the republic. His greatest achievement was the inspiration he provided the American people and the leadership he provided the American government. It was best demonstrated in the manner in which he challenged all of the shibboleths, and led the U.S. and the NATO alliance to a position where we witnessed the implosion of the Soviet Union, the end of the Warsaw Pact, the reunification of Germany, and the ushering in of a new and peaceful era. I consider myself privileged to be able to serve at a time when Ronald Reagan was on the scene and to be viewed by him as a friend. That meant a lot to me, still does and always will.

National Post

On February 11, Mr. Mulroney will deliver the keynote address at the second of four official commemorations of the Reagan Centennial, in Washington, D.C.

In the wake of a Grammy Awards ceremony that disappointed many, from Kanye West to the masses on Twitter lamenting the state of pop music, a historical perspective is key. Few are better poised to offer one than Andy Kim.